Who Cares What Musicians Think About Politics? They're Not Experts, They're Artists--Which Is Exactly Why We Should Listen.
Last week I got a call from Randy Randall, guitarist for Los Angeles rock duo No Age, who are currently on the Sub Pop record label. Randy was flustered, talking a mile-a-minute, about what had just gone down. The band had just finished performing a song for some sort of Craig Ferguson/CBS TV thing that was to be broadcast October 27--just over a week before the presidential election. Cameras were about to roll when suddently they were told by an on-set CBS underling that something needed to go: Randy's Obama t-shirt.
This wasn't because CBS wanted No Age to go topless. They're keeping that for the spring break special. No, this was because, the CBS person said, the Obama shirt was on-air editorializing--a possible violation of some FCC edict which this person claimed called for equal time to be given to opposing political viewpoints.
One problem: the last remnant of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" was repealed in 1987; the repeal was upheld by court ruling in 1989.
Since then, corrollary rules of the Fairness Doctrine--the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule--have also been struck down in the courts, with the last court ruling (and subsequent FCC order) coming in 2000.
In short, there is no fairness rule. Randy's Obama shirt was perfectly broadcastable under every existing law.
But neither No Age nor their people at Sub Pop were aware of the Fairness Doctrine's long-ago demise, and took CBS at their word.
After much deliberation, Randy put on another shirt, which said "Free Health Care," the band played, and the show will, apparently, air.
Some of the slower folks out there may rejoin with, Well who the heck cares what rock musicians think about the election? They should just shut up and play their songs. Leave politics to the experts! On with the doggone show!
What experts are these people talking about? Experts on public policy like the Republican vice presidential candidate? Maybe Bill O'Reilly? Tom Friedman? Rush Limbaugh? Katie Couric? Whoopi Goldberg? All the other nattering goofheads on CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, CNN and PBS--all of which are underwritten by corporate America, wealthy advertisers, upper-class endowments and the government itself?
Please.
The political situation in this country--heck, on this planet--is far too serious to leave it to these so-called experts, useful idiots and outright bought-and-paid-for whores to debate on our public airwaves.
What we need are other voices, the voices that humanity has always listened to in times of trouble: the voices of the visionaries, the poets, the authors, the ones with a longer view and a deeper sense of what's at stake, who can tell us more about what's going on and why, and perhaps bring us new metaphors, new ways of thinking, new ways of seeing, the situation we face. This country desperately needs to better understand what is happening to itself, and to imagine a better future. Well, artists work with imagination and observation - that is their field. It's long past time we let them back in to the discussion. And it's time to listen to what they're saying--and yes, to look at what they're wearing, too. Time is running out.
Jay Babcock is editor and publisher of Arthur, the free all ages counterculture magazine.
2 - You're confused!
3 - You are wrong in two ways, sir. The "equal time" rule applies to appearances by candidates, not to t-shirts worn by people appearing on camera. Also, I am told it was the fairness doctrine that the CBS staffer cited.
Oh well, Obama doesn't even support universal health care. However, he does support a larger military budget, more war in Afghanistan (including sketchy cross-border raids into Pakistan), nuclear power plants, "clean" coal, FISA (warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity), et al.
From a progressive point-of-view, he's only slightly better than that old dude. Vote Nader/Gonzalez '08!
"What we need are other voices, the voices that humanity has always listened to in times of trouble: the voices of the visionaries, the poets, the authors, the ones with a longer view and a deeper sense of what's at stake, who can tell us more about what's going on and why, and perhaps bring us new metaphors, new ways of thinking, new ways of seeing, the situation we face."
As if supporting Barack Obama is anything other than a refutation of new metaphors, new ways of thinking, new ways of seeing the situation we face.